Nicholas II had tried his best to regain people’s support and stop the revolution tide through the reforms after the 1905 Revolution. After the 1905 Revolution, the Tsar still had to face the above problems. In order to prolong his rule, he was forced to reform Russia. At first, he agreed to set up parliament, Duma. It made Russia became a constitution country like Britain.
How far do you agree that Trotsky’s leadership of the red army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government? In October 1917 the Bolshevik’s took control of Russia after staging a revolution. However they faced many dangers/threats while in power from the years 1917-1924 such as a civil war and the economic crisis it caused. The leadership of the red army by Trotsky is a very important reason that the Bolsheviks got into power as his red army implanted the revolution but also to the survival of the Bolsheviks as the red army overcame the Bolsheviks biggest threat of the civil war. However there are other reason which just as or more important than Trotsky’s leadership such as the ideas and sacrifices made by Lenin during the year’s 1917-1924 such as signing the harsh treaty of Brest-Litovsk and enforcing the New Economic Policy or NEP, to create economic sacrifices rather than political ones which allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power.
How significant was the work of reforming leaders in changing the nature of Russian government and society in the period from 1856-1964? Intentionalist historians such as Westwood, would say that the most significant factor for changing the nature of Russian government and society was the work of reforming leaders, such as Alexander II who carried out the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861: “with the possible exception of Khrushchev, no other Russian ruler did so much to reduce the suffering of the Russian people”1. I agree with intentionalist’s views to an extent because reforming leaders did have a major impact in pushing reforms through however other factors of change must be considered. I also agree with a structuralist point of view, that the Russian people and key pressure groups like the Social Revolutionaries also played a significant part in changing the nature of Russian government and society. In addition, World War II introduced change through industrialisation, which was key to Russia’s success in the war.
One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status. It can be argued that the implementation of the Zemstvos under Alexander II paved the way for the full legalisation of opposition, as this allowed the spawning of political ideas. However, under Nicholas II this was more prevalent, as the October Manifesto allowed for the full legalisation of opposition through the implementation of the Dumas. Though the Dumas acted as unsuccessful opposition to the Tsar – as he declared the Fundamental Laws almost immediately after the Dumas came into existence – this was important as it allowed the opposition groups to burgeon. Unlike the regimes of both Alexander II and III, political discussion was allowed, and as such it developed more so than at any other time in the period.
How Successful Were The Russian Governments In Promoting Economic Change And Modernisation Between 1881 and 1904? When Alexander III came into power, he made sure that industrialization was at the forefront of his plans. So under Vyshnedgradsky and Witte, various measures were imposed to help kick start industrialization, which led to significant economic change The improved transport system, which resulted from government investment in infrastructure like the railways, helped to vastly improve Russia’s economic situation. This is evident through the clear positive correlation between railway improvements and increases in Russia’s industrial output. The length of railway tracks in Russia increased form 31219 miles in 1891 to 58392 miles by 1904.
How far do you agree that Trotsky’s leadership of red army was responsible for survival of the Bolshevik government? The Bolsheviks had some control of Russia, when tsar had been abdicated and when the provisional government was in charge for a short period. The Bolsheviks had then taking control of Russia from the Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks' next aim was to maintain their weak hold on the reins of power. But the only way Bolsheviks were to be in full power was to win the civil war in 1918 against the white army. Who were also looking to become in power.
For the previous few centuries whilst Western Europe had been developing Russia had been living in the middle ages and the Emancipation of the Serfs put an end to this. Also for a long period prior to Alexander II’s reign Russia had been seen as a major power but after the Crimean War came a realisation that this was not the case any longer. Another large turning point in Russian History is the creation of the Duma because it was a start towards democracy. Also it was the first time any Tsar had been forced to make concessions which paved the start towards revolutions and more power to the people. A fairly insignificant turning point is the period of Russification brought about by Alexander III.
‘The October Revolution was the most significant turning point in the development of Russian government.’ How far do you agree? If a ‘turning point’ can be taken to describe a significant irreversible shift in the course of history, then certainly the October Revolution in 1917 can be described as one. Yet whether it was the most substantial event in determining the course of Russian government in the years after is debateable. To assess whether this is truly the case, the Bolshevik uprising can be compared against other key turning points, such as Khrushchev’s ‘Destalinisation’ and Alexander II’s assassination, in terms of their effects on the ideology of government, whether or not it altered the structure of government in any way, if representation was reformed and if the tools of government changed whatsoever as a result. Arguably Russia’s transformation from an autocratic state to a communist one was the greatest modification in the whole period 1855 to 1964, however, despite differing ideals there was in fact a large amount of continuity between the idealistically different styles of governance.
How far do you agree that communists and Tsars ruled Russia in the same way? The February Revolution of 1917 that brought down the Tsarist regime and led to the ascension of the Provisional Government, had much potential to bring about significant change from the autocratic regime of the Tsars. However, the totalitarian government of the communists seized power in the October Revolution and continued to maintain many aspects of Tsarist rule including the top-down approach to rule, their ideology in policy making and their repressive methods. Although the communists and Tsars appeared to rule differently in their theory, in practice their methods were to a very large extent the same. The top-down approach the rulers of Russia had in the period 1855-1964 were superficially different as the communists claimed to represent the people by giving power to the proletariat where as the Tsars were heavily elitist in their ideology.
In 1890, Russia encouraged a ‘great spurt’ as their industry grew rapidly. A major reason for the exceptional growth was the increase in the output of coal in the Ukraine and of oil in the Caucasus. However, the motives of the tsarist government were military rather than economic. Economic expansion attracted the tsar and his ministers because it was a means of improving the strength of the Russian armed forces, as a growing industry would produce more and better guns, equipment and ships. An outstanding individual involved in Russia’s development was Sergei Witte.